Subject: [PATCH v2 21/21] arm64: Panic when VHE and non VHE CPUs coexist

From: [email-masked] (Marc Zyngier)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:32:04 +0000

On 01/02/16 15:36, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 03:53:55PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Having both VHE and non-VHE capable CPUs in the same system
>> is likely to be a recipe for disaster.
>>
>> If the boot CPU has VHE, but a secondary is not, we won't be
>> able to downgrade and run the kernel at EL1. Add CPU hotplug
>> to the mix, and this produces a terrifying mess.
>>
>> Let's solve the problem once and for all. If you mix VHE and
>> non-VHE CPUs in the same system, you deserve to loose, and this
>> patch makes sure you don't get a chance.
>>
>> This is implemented by storing the kernel execution level in
>> a global variable. Secondaries will park themselves in a
>> WFI loop if they observe a mismatch. Also, the primary CPU
>> will detect that the secondary CPU has died on a mismatched
>> execution level. Panic will follow.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <[email-masked]>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/head.S      | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c       |  3 +++
>>  3 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h
>> index 9f22dd6..f81a345 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h
>> @@ -36,6 +36,11 @@
>>   */
>>  extern u32 __boot_cpu_mode[2];
>>  
>> +/*
>> + * __run_cpu_mode records the mode the boot CPU uses for the kernel.
>> + */
>> +extern u32 __run_cpu_mode[2];
>> +
>>  void __hyp_set_vectors(phys_addr_t phys_vector_base);
>>  phys_addr_t __hyp_get_vectors(void);
>>  
>> @@ -60,6 +65,18 @@ static inline bool is_kernel_in_hyp_mode(void)
>>  	return el == CurrentEL_EL2;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static inline bool is_kernel_mode_mismatched(void)
>> +{
>> +	/*
>> +	 * A mismatched CPU will have written its own CurrentEL in
>> +	 * __run_cpu_mode[1] (initially set to zero) after failing to
>> +	 * match the value in __run_cpu_mode[0]. Thus, a non-zero
>> +	 * value in __run_cpu_mode[1] is enough to detect the
>> +	 * pathological case.
>> +	 */
>> +	return !!ACCESS_ONCE(__run_cpu_mode[1]);
>> +}
>> +
>>  /* The section containing the hypervisor text */
>>  extern char __hyp_text_start[];
>>  extern char __hyp_text_end[];
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>> index 2a7134c..bc44cf8 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>> @@ -577,7 +577,23 @@ ENTRY(set_cpu_boot_mode_flag)
>>  1:	str	w20, [x1]			// This CPU has booted in EL1
>>  	dmb	sy
>>  	dc	ivac, x1			// Invalidate potentially stale cache line
>> +	adr_l	x1, __run_cpu_mode
>> +	ldr	w0, [x1]
>> +	mrs	x20, CurrentEL
>> +	cbz	x0, skip_el_check
>> +	cmp	x0, x20
>> +	bne	mismatched_el
> 
> can't you do a ret here instead of writing the same value and flushing
> caches etc.?

Yes, good point.

> 
>> +skip_el_check:			// Only the first CPU gets to set the rule
>> +	str	w20, [x1]
>> +	dmb	sy
>> +	dc	ivac, x1	// Invalidate potentially stale cache line
>>  	ret
>> +mismatched_el:
>> +	str	w20, [x1, #4]
>> +	dmb	sy
>> +	dc	ivac, x1	// Invalidate potentially stale cache line
>> +1:	wfi
> 
> I'm no expert on SMP bringup, but doesn't this prevent the CPU from
> signaling completion and thus you'll never actually reach the checking
> code in __cpu_up?

Indeed, and that's the whole point. The primary CPU will notice that the
secondary CPU has failed to boot (timeout), and will find the reason in
__run_cpu_mode.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...